Originally posted by Scarpa
I did understand that. As a processor, what you pay the supplier, assuming you are operating the processing plant efficiently, is the actual recovery of ore and apply penalties where the input feed has impurities. Even in traditional Offtake Agreements, and yes I know this arrangement here is slightly different, they have this concept in play - the buyer ultimately tests the product/feedstock/ore they bought and see whether it aligns with contract specifications and if it does not, adjustments to the price it pays to the supplier are made etc etc etc. Not sure why that was been debated in this thread because that is normal commercial practice in any event between buyer and seller on whatever you buy. The concept would be similar for a Tolling arrangement as well (i.e in the event title is taken by the Toller or not, the supplier of ore is simply paid actual recovery or assumed recovery on the ore feed, assuming the Toller is operating efficiently and the ore feed itself is in the required specifications).
In terms of SAMREC versus JORC, as long as have the historical required logs in the correct data presentation framework relatively easy to convert from SAMREC to JORC (just only have to look at VEC - Feb 2018 Ann there - to understand that, and I know you do understand that so this comment was aimed at others). SAMREC and JORC 2012 are also relatively similar with the main difference between them is some of the changes in JORC 2012 in terms of reporting/historical logging/more stringent documentation on where the core came from and how it was prepared, security issue of the data, so if have the historical cores/data/analysis for SAMREC results they can be converted to the JORC 2012 framework (and as shown in VEC the results are similar in terms of SAMREC versus JORC 2012). Where the difficulty is, is where data documentation is lost, which means you cannot readily reconvert the SAMREC data back to a JORC 2012 because you cannot tick all the JORC 2012 reporting boxes, but that doesn't mean the SAMREC data is useless (because in Africa there is a number of projects currently in mining where the mining decision was based on SAMREC).
In terms of WFE, I totally agree it is not WFE's responsibility to be rabbiting on about JORC 2012 on drill results/feedstock where the ore is not owned by them (even if the information is SAMREC based because as I said SAMREC itself is a pretty thorough assay reporting process as well in the past so no evidence to say those results pre 2012 are fudged in any event).
All WFE need to do is have some relative confidence that it will get the input feed for its operations short term, but longer term as I implied in my post, I suspect WFE will prove up resources from their own tenements and use that as the feedstock in the facilities. Short term, for WFE it is about confidence that it will get adequate feedstock from suppliers. The ASX cannot force WFE to undertake a JORC 2012 code assessment on deposits it does not because that is outside WFE's jurisdiction and the ASX cannot do that btw IMO.
Nonetheless, I would expect WFE to at least take some samples from potential suppliers, prior to committing to buy/treat their ore, to confirm its processor can extract a payable cobalt concentrate etc etc from that ore (but that does not mean it will do a JORC 2012 assessment). My interpretation it has probably already tested some of the ore in process within a MET test to show recoverability of cobalt in its process, or at least understand the type of ore treated historically in the processor and the recoveries attained, hence why it is confident it can make money from treating someone else's ore in the interim, but I doubt whether they would provide those results publicly in an Ann because I suspect that would have been part of commercial-in-confidence agreements, esepcially where they have been testing a potential supplier's ore). Just a guess. That would be simply a normal aspect of commercial business to test the ore feed before committing to any contracturaul quantities for processing etc etc (and you would still test each batch of input as well under a formal contract as part of payment terms - see above).
All IMO and need a VB as didn't expect to write so much on this subject. Anyway the 'Pollywaffle' is making a return for those that are old and ate them in the 1970s, so the term pollywaffle has a new meaning now than the typical pollywaffle I write. All IMO IMO and need a VB
@Scarpa, apologies if you thought I was directing anything towards yourself,
@ozblue was pretty adamant that it would need to be JORCed, I was only reinforcing the fact it didn't, cheers, certainly looking forward to the original polywaffle coming back online, wish someone would bring the original choo choo bar back to
